Complications and opioid-prescribing patterns following genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation versus intra-articular injection: a matched cohort study

Andrew Fuqua, Ajay Premkumar, Prathap Jayaram, Casey Wagner
{"title":"Complications and opioid-prescribing patterns following genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation versus intra-articular injection: a matched cohort study","authors":"Andrew Fuqua, Ajay Premkumar, Prathap Jayaram, Casey Wagner","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2023-105053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and objectives Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GNRFA) is an emerging procedure used to relieve pain from severe knee osteoarthritis. While there have been rare reports of significant complications, their incidence has not been well established. The objective of this study was to examine complication rates at 30 and 90 days post treatment as well as characterize opioid-prescribing patterns before and after treatment. Methods A large national database was queried to identify patients undergoing GNRFA from 2015 to 2022 and matched to control cohorts composed of patients receiving either intra-articular corticosteroid (CSI) or hyaluronic acid injection (HAI) of the knee. Complication rates at 30 and 90 days were analyzed. Opioid utilization was assessed in the 6 months before and after treatment. Results Rates of infection (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), septic arthritis (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5%), deep vein thrombosis (2.0%, CI 1.3% to 2.7% vs 1.6%, CI 1.0% to 2.2%), pulmonary embolism (1.2%, CI 0.6% to 1.7% vs 1.3%, CI 1.1% to 2.5%), bleeding (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), seroma (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%) and thermal injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%) were not different between CSI and GNRFA cohorts at 30 days. Rate of swelling was significantly greater in the GNRFA cohort (9.4%, CI 7.6% to 10.4% vs 6.4%, CI 4.8% to 7.2%, p=0.003) at 30 days. At 90 days, rates of septic arthritis (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.3%, CI 0.08% to 0.7%), deep vein thrombosis (3.1%, CI 2.1% to 3.8% vs 3.1%, CI 2.2% to 3.9%), pulmonary embolism (1.5%, CI 0.9% to 2.1% vs 1.8%, CI 1.2% to 2.5%), and nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs <0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4%) were not significantly different. Between HAI versus GNRFA cohorts, no significant differences were seen in rates of infection (0.3%, CI 0.08% to 0.07% vs 0.7%, CI 0.3% to 1.2%), septic arthritis (0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6% vs 0.4%, CI 0.2% to 0.9%), deep vein thrombosis (2.0%, CI 1.3% to 2.7% vs 1.9%, CI 1.2% to 2.7%), pulmonary embolism (1.5%, CI 0.9% to 2.2% vs 1.7%, CI 1.1% to 2.5%), bleeding (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), seroma (<0.1%, CI 0.03% to 0.4% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), swelling (14.0%, CI 11.6% to 15.1% vs 12.0%, CI 10.3% to 13.6%), and thermal injury (<0.1%, CI 0.03% to 0.4% vs <0.01%, CI 0.3% to 0.4%) at 30 days. Rates of infection (0.7%, CI 0.3% to 1.2% vs 1.4%, CI 0.9% to 2.1%), septic arthritis (0.3%, CI 0.1% to 0.8% vs 0.5%, CI 0.2% to 1.1%), deep vein thrombosis (3.6%, CI 2.6% to 4.4% vs 3.1%, CI 2.2% to 4.0%), pulmonary embolism (2.3%, CI 1.5% to 3.0% vs 2.1%, CI 1.4% to 3.0%) and nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5%) were not significantly different at 90 days. There were no significant differences in level of pretreatment opioid utilization although overall consumption in mean daily morphine equivalents was greater in the GNRFA cohort. Opioid utilization significantly increased in the first 30 days after ablation in patients with no prior opioid use compared to controls. In patients with some and chronic prior opioid use, opioid requirements were generally decreased in all treatment groups at 6 months with no clearly superior treatment in reducing opioid consumption. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that GNRFA possesses a safety profile similar to that of intra-articular injections although significant adverse events such as venous thromboembolism and septic arthritis may occur rarely. Although opioid utilization generally increased in the 30 days after ablation compared with intra-articular injection, similar reduction in opioid consumption at 6 months was seen in patients with prior opioid use in the ablation and control cohorts. Data are available upon reasonable request. All data were obtained via IBM (now Merative) Marketscan Research Databases.","PeriodicalId":21046,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine","volume":"286 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-105053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GNRFA) is an emerging procedure used to relieve pain from severe knee osteoarthritis. While there have been rare reports of significant complications, their incidence has not been well established. The objective of this study was to examine complication rates at 30 and 90 days post treatment as well as characterize opioid-prescribing patterns before and after treatment. Methods A large national database was queried to identify patients undergoing GNRFA from 2015 to 2022 and matched to control cohorts composed of patients receiving either intra-articular corticosteroid (CSI) or hyaluronic acid injection (HAI) of the knee. Complication rates at 30 and 90 days were analyzed. Opioid utilization was assessed in the 6 months before and after treatment. Results Rates of infection (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), septic arthritis (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5%), deep vein thrombosis (2.0%, CI 1.3% to 2.7% vs 1.6%, CI 1.0% to 2.2%), pulmonary embolism (1.2%, CI 0.6% to 1.7% vs 1.3%, CI 1.1% to 2.5%), bleeding (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), seroma (<0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%) and thermal injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%) were not different between CSI and GNRFA cohorts at 30 days. Rate of swelling was significantly greater in the GNRFA cohort (9.4%, CI 7.6% to 10.4% vs 6.4%, CI 4.8% to 7.2%, p=0.003) at 30 days. At 90 days, rates of septic arthritis (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.3%, CI 0.08% to 0.7%), deep vein thrombosis (3.1%, CI 2.1% to 3.8% vs 3.1%, CI 2.2% to 3.9%), pulmonary embolism (1.5%, CI 0.9% to 2.1% vs 1.8%, CI 1.2% to 2.5%), and nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs <0.1%, CI 0.003% to 0.4%) were not significantly different. Between HAI versus GNRFA cohorts, no significant differences were seen in rates of infection (0.3%, CI 0.08% to 0.07% vs 0.7%, CI 0.3% to 1.2%), septic arthritis (0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6% vs 0.4%, CI 0.2% to 0.9%), deep vein thrombosis (2.0%, CI 1.3% to 2.7% vs 1.9%, CI 1.2% to 2.7%), pulmonary embolism (1.5%, CI 0.9% to 2.2% vs 1.7%, CI 1.1% to 2.5%), bleeding (0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5% vs 0.2%, CI 0.05% to 0.6%), seroma (<0.1%, CI 0.03% to 0.4% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0%, CI 0% to 0.3%), swelling (14.0%, CI 11.6% to 15.1% vs 12.0%, CI 10.3% to 13.6%), and thermal injury (<0.1%, CI 0.03% to 0.4% vs <0.01%, CI 0.3% to 0.4%) at 30 days. Rates of infection (0.7%, CI 0.3% to 1.2% vs 1.4%, CI 0.9% to 2.1%), septic arthritis (0.3%, CI 0.1% to 0.8% vs 0.5%, CI 0.2% to 1.1%), deep vein thrombosis (3.6%, CI 2.6% to 4.4% vs 3.1%, CI 2.2% to 4.0%), pulmonary embolism (2.3%, CI 1.5% to 3.0% vs 2.1%, CI 1.4% to 3.0%) and nerve injury (0%, CI 0% to 0.3% vs 0.1%, CI 0.02% to 0.5%) were not significantly different at 90 days. There were no significant differences in level of pretreatment opioid utilization although overall consumption in mean daily morphine equivalents was greater in the GNRFA cohort. Opioid utilization significantly increased in the first 30 days after ablation in patients with no prior opioid use compared to controls. In patients with some and chronic prior opioid use, opioid requirements were generally decreased in all treatment groups at 6 months with no clearly superior treatment in reducing opioid consumption. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that GNRFA possesses a safety profile similar to that of intra-articular injections although significant adverse events such as venous thromboembolism and septic arthritis may occur rarely. Although opioid utilization generally increased in the 30 days after ablation compared with intra-articular injection, similar reduction in opioid consumption at 6 months was seen in patients with prior opioid use in the ablation and control cohorts. Data are available upon reasonable request. All data were obtained via IBM (now Merative) Marketscan Research Databases.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
膝状神经射频消融与关节内注射后的并发症和阿片类药物处方模式:一项匹配队列研究
背景和目的 膝盖神经射频消融术(GNRFA)是一种新兴的手术,用于缓解严重膝骨关节炎引起的疼痛。虽然很少有关于严重并发症的报道,但并发症的发生率尚未得到很好的证实。本研究旨在检查治疗后 30 天和 90 天的并发症发生率,以及治疗前后阿片类药物处方模式的特点。方法 通过查询大型国家数据库,确定 2015 年至 2022 年期间接受 GNRFA 的患者,并与接受膝关节内皮质类固醇 (CSI) 或透明质酸注射 (HAI) 的患者组成的对照组进行匹配。对 30 天和 90 天的并发症发生率进行了分析。对治疗前后 6 个月的阿片类药物使用情况进行了评估。结果 感染率(0.1%,CI 0.02% 至 0.5% vs 0.2%,CI 0.05% 至 0.6%)、化脓性关节炎(<0.1%,CI 0.003% 至 0.4% vs 0.1%,CI 0.02% 至 0.5%)、深静脉血栓(2.0%,CI 1.3%至2.7% vs 1.6%,CI 1.0%至2.2%)、肺栓塞(1.2%,CI 0.6%至1.7% vs 1.3%,CI 1.1%至2.30天时,CSI队列和GNRFA队列之间在出血(<0.1%,CI 0.003% 至 0.4% vs 0%,CI 0% 至 0.3%)、血清肿(<0.1%,CI 0.003% 至 0.4% vs 0.2%,CI 0.05% 至 0.6%)、神经损伤(0%,CI 0% 至 0.3% vs 0%,CI 0% 至 0.3%)和热损伤(0%,CI 0% 至 0.3% vs 0%,CI 0% 至 0.3%)方面没有差异。30 天时,GNRFA 组的肿胀率明显更高(9.4%,CI 7.6% 至 10.4% vs 6.4%,CI 4.8% 至 7.2%,P=0.003)。90天时,脓毒性关节炎(0.1%,CI为0.02%至0.5% vs 0.3%,CI为0.08%至0.7%)、深静脉血栓(3.1%,CI为2.1%至3.8% vs 3.1%,CI为2.2%至3.9%)、肺栓塞(1.5%,CI 0.9% 至 2.1% vs 1.8%,CI 1.2% 至 2.5%)和神经损伤(0%,CI 0% 至 0.3% vs <0.1%,CI 0.003% 至 0.4%)无显著差异。在 HAI 与 GNRFA 队列之间,感染率(0.3%,CI 0.08% 至 0.07% vs 0.7%,CI 0.3% 至 1.2%)、化脓性关节炎(0.2%,CI 0.05% 至 0.6% vs 0.4%,CI 0.2% 至 0.9%)、深静脉血栓(2.0%,CI 1.3% 至 2.7% vs 1.9%,CI 1.2% 至 2.7%)、肺栓塞(1.5%,CI 0.9% 至 2.2% vs 1.7%,CI 1.1%至2.5%)、出血(0.1%,CI为0.02%至0.5% vs 0.2%,CI为0.05%至0.6%)、血清肿(<0.1%,CI为0.03%至0.4% vs 0%,CI为0%至0.3%)、神经损伤(0%,CI为0%至0.30天时,肿胀(14.0%,CI 11.6% 至 15.1% vs 12.0%,CI 10.3% 至 13.6%)和热损伤(<0.1%,CI 0.03% 至 0.4% vs <0.01%,CI 0.3% 至 0.4%)。感染(0.7%,CI 0.3%至1.2% vs 1.4%,CI 0.9%至2.1%)、化脓性关节炎(0.3%,CI 0.1%至0.8% vs 0.5%,CI 0.2%至1.1%)、深静脉血栓(3.6%,CI 2.6%至4.4% vs 3.1%,CI 2.90天时,深静脉血栓(3.6%,CI值为2.6%至4.4% vs 3.1%,CI值为2.2%至4.0%)、肺栓塞(2.3%,CI值为1.5%至3.0% vs 2.1%,CI值为1.4%至3.0%)和神经损伤(0%,CI值为0%至0.3% vs 0.1%,CI值为0.02%至0.5%)无显著差异。虽然GNRFA队列中平均每日吗啡当量的总体消耗量更大,但治疗前阿片类药物的使用水平没有明显差异。与对照组相比,既往未使用过阿片类药物的患者在消融术后前30天的阿片类药物使用量明显增加。在既往使用过阿片类药物或长期使用阿片类药物的患者中,所有治疗组在 6 个月后的阿片类药物需求量普遍减少,在减少阿片类药物消耗量方面没有明显优越的治疗方法。结论 我们的研究表明,尽管静脉血栓栓塞和化脓性关节炎等重大不良事件可能极少发生,但 GNRFA 具有与关节内注射相似的安全性。虽然与关节内注射相比,消融术后 30 天内阿片类药物的使用量普遍增加,但在消融术组和对照组中,曾使用过阿片类药物的患者在 6 个月时阿片类药物的用量减少情况相似。如有合理要求,可提供相关数据。所有数据均通过 IBM(现为 Merative)Marketscan 研究数据库获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimal techniques of ultrasound-guided superficial and deep parasternal intercostal plane blocks—a cadaveric study Multimodal analgesia and the erector spinae plane block in a rapid recovery pathway after posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized controlled study of practicality In reply: evaluating the efficacy of PENG and SIFICB in hip fracture analgesia – a critical analysis Invited reply letter: optimal techniques of ultrasound-guided superficial and deep parasternal intercostal plane blocks – a cadaveric study Postoperative epidural analgesia and outcomes following pediatric bilateral lung and heart-lung transplantation: a retrospective observational study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1